What probably hasn’t been clear here is that Scientology is not taught. It is studied. It is evaluated based on personal integrity (what’s true for you is true because you used it and found it worked - my words).

Part of the Scientology Study Technology is a test of whether it works for you or not

It goes like this.
1. How could it be that way
2. How could it not be that way

By working those 2 points, back and forth, on anything you find hard to believe you can decide for yourself if it’s true for you or not. That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t have to be true for you, ok? There’s nothing wrong with that.

On that line, I still don’t understand how you arrived at the idea that Atheists should be isolated from society. The quote I gave you talks about Science being godless, because it teaches that we are mud and not spiritual beings. That’s what it means to me, anyway. I have seen some Atheists state that they believe they are spiritual beings while at the same time believing that there is no Creator. There are people out there who aren’t even Scientologists that believe they are spiritual beings. We don’t have a copyright on knowledge (just the marks of Dianetics and Scientology and the works of L Ron Hubbard :P), and we aren’t telling you what you have to believe or not believe.

You’ve called it being vague, when I tell you to use your personal integrity. I hope this clears it up for you. If you want an opinion, then you would get my reality and personal truths. It may not agree with yours. What’s true for me may not be true for you. Is that ok?

Pat

1: Hubbard seems to act under the assumption that membership in all such “groups” is voluntary and that all members of the group are party to the creation of its “rules”. I suspect there are some feudal serfs who would disagree.

2: Further, the concept of “overts” seems to operate under the assumption that there is no such thing as a negative “moral code”. I hate to Godwin the whole argument, BUT: Nazi Germany had a set of moral codes. Would acting against those be an “overt” and thereby the cause of all the difficulty that supposedly comes along with that?

3: Hubbard frequently switches between qualifying language and absolutes. For instance, he states that it is -possible- for individuals to be forced out of a situation because it has become so untenable, though this is rare. In the very next paragraph, he states in absolute terms that “A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt” and that a person’s departure is -by necessity- a product of their overts and withholds. How do you reconcile these two statements?

4: Again, I hate to invoke the Nazis, but they ARE a handy sociological reference point. In regards to the claim that “A man with a clean heart cannot be hurt”, how does this fit with, say, the Holocaust? How does it fit with ethnic cleansing? In those situations, people are (through no fault of their own) being persecuted and harmed, meaning that their alternatives are:
A: Fight back (and, frequently, defy the agreed-upon “moral codes” of the majority of society)
B: Flee (leaving the “group”, apparently as a result of their own overts)
C: Let themselves be victimized (which, according to Hubbard, is apparently impossible).

I don’t mean this to sound disrespectful, but honestly, it all sounds incredibly simplistic and ignorant of not only the vast body of sociological and anthropological research, but human history as well.

“Godlessness” is typically defined as lack of belief in a god or gods. This is the same as atheism. Lack of belief in a soul may or may not enter into it; however, that’s irrelevant for the question at hand.

-Given- that many, perhaps most, atheists ALSO deny the existence of a soul, does Hubbard suggest that these individuals should be isolated from society? Even given the narrower-than-normal definition of “godless”, they would seem to qualify.

If this is NOT the case, could you expound a bit upon how -you- read the term “godless” here, along with his suggestion that said individuals should be removed from society?

Got it.

EA, What do you mean by “creative” interpretation? You either understand it or you don’t, right? What does it say? It is what it is. You maybe are used to dealing with people who speak in innuendo? Why would you try to think it means anything other than what it says?

He was very clear what he meant by Godlessness. Nothing less, and nothing more.

Pat

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was responding to your post, starting with

“False

What word was misunderstood? ”

I could have been more specific, and for that I apologize.

By the way, AKION. That’s so cool that you use LRH’s full name like that. :)

Pat

Pat

The primary thrust of the quoted passage seems to be the denial of a supreme being. That is -precisely- what atheism is.

Now, if you’d like to try to “creatively” interpret that passage to mean that “godlessness” must by necessity include a completely materialistic world view and thereby deny anything transcendent in humanity, you still run into a couple of problems.

1: This is still in line with the position of many, if not most, of the self-defined “atheists”;
2: Freedom of religion also includes freedom NOT to believe, and that passage would still seem to condemn individuals who do not believe in a soul or gods or anything “supernatural” to, at best, removal from the rest of society.

Can you please indicate how the above is incorrect, if at all?

False

What word was misunderstood?

If you read the quote you’ll see that he tells you exactly what he means by Godless. What does Atheist have to do with those trying to say we are only lumps of mud and not spiritual beings?

Pat